After catching up with the longest chain:

  "blocks" : 771925,
  "digsupply" : 823174.55351186, <-- old version
  "digsupply" : 825790.45237218, <-- new version

So only 568 digs were missed, out of a total of 179307.

That's an error of 0.317%, and there are 2615.89886032 more CLAMs in the active supply than we previously thought. Sorry about that!

Right.

The list of weights is used directly as an input to the JD wallets to tell them how to stake. Lines beginning with '#' are comments, ignored by the CLAM client.

I didn't used to include the comments, and only invluded the unique combinations (which sum to the size of the bankroll, in satoshis). I added the per-petition percentages since people requested them.

xploited discovered recently that the client's tracking of the total amount dug up has been wrong ever since it started tracking. Not very wrong, but still wrong.

So all the charts I've posted have slightly underestimated the "digsupply".

I've reported (#263) and fixed (#264) the bug, and am now reindexing my copy of the blockchain to find out exactly how big the error is.

It turns out that whenever a single transaction dug multiple outputs from the same block, only one output from each block was counted.

My reindexing is at block 492713 so far.

The bug caused the digsupply to be calcuated as 318278.44073566 at that block; after fixing the bug it is 320668.67226472

That's an error of 100 * (320668.67226472 - 318278.44073566) / 320668.67226472 = 0.745%, so nothing major. I expect the percentage error will end up being smaller, because "curious" always dig his outputs in separate transactions (one dig per tx) and so the bug won't have shown up for any of his digs.

No, you have that backwards.

it's 36.65% of the whole Just-Dice weight.
50% of the Just-Dice weight didn't cast a vote.
So it's around 73% of the actively voting weight.

ie. 3 out of 4 of the weight that voted for anything voted to stop digging.

To see this, check https://just-dice.com/misc/clamour_weights.txt - here's a recent version with the numbers made more readable, and with non-5afa votes deleted:


560k didn't vote, representing ~50% of the total
1090 + 3808 + 8657 + 10124 + 17614 + 34914 + 47721 + 131975 + 164747 = 421k votes for 5afa, representing ~37% of the total.

Yeah. I'm not saying CLAM's distribution was a good idea. I'm saying that chilly's is even worse...

OK, so it's like a lottery, but the more 'tickets' you buy, the more chance you have of winning. So you are encouraging people to pollute the BTC blockchain with thousands of tiny outputs to increase their chance of winning some CLAM. I don't think that's something we should encourage.

I think you are misunderstanding still.

First, she is talking about "sweeping" coins from deposit addresses into a single storage address (not "swiping", which means something between "taking" and "stealing").

And second, most big services will regularly tidy their wallets to sweep the dust into a central address. Otherwise you end up with a big ugly wallet full of dust. Since they were regularly doing that, they are unlikely to have had many *funded* addresses at the time of the CLAM snapshot, and so wouldn't have been awarded many sets of free 4.6 CLAMs. It doesn't matter if they've kept all the one dust addresses since, because those were mostly empty at the time of the snapshot.

Do you understand the point now? The initial distribution awards those who didn't keep their wallets tidy - like faucet abusers who collected tens of thousands of dust outputs in tens of thousands of addresses. Those who kept the blockchain's UTXO set tidy received much less. Personally, from all the wallets I control I was able to dig around 30 sets of 4.6 CLAMs. That's from 3 or 4 Just-Dice hot wallets, a few Doge-Doge, cold wallets for both, and a bunch of personal wallets too (core and android). 30 funded addresses in total, because I kept everything clean and tidy.


To be pedantic, anyone's decision is final when the rest of the community is 50/50, assuming >50% is the criterion for deciding it.

I already supported the petitions I support, so there's no last-minute controlling vote coming from me.

We absolutely could do this, technically speaking.

But I think it's a bad idea.

The original distribution kind of worked, because nobody was expecting it, and so nobody could prepare for it by seeding thousands of BTC addresses with just enough to qualify for free CLAMs. OK, some will say that the devs did exactly that. Maybe they did. That's not the point.

The point is that if you tell people that from now on they can get 4.6 CLAMs for every BTC address that contains more than 0.0001 BTC, there is nothing to stop them making thousands of such addresses. For $40 you can make 1000 of them. Then all you need to do is wait a week and claim your 4600 CLAMs,
worth over 100 times what you spent on BTC to create them.

tldr: Distributing based on the number of addresses you own only works if you don't announce it before you start counting addresses. Otherwise people can (and will) abuse it mercilessly.

Yes, you can. Write your petition. Hash it. Upload it. Put "create clamour <sha256> <url>" as the speech when you withdraw. I recommend txti.es, with the first 8 hex digits of the hash as the rest of the URL.


You seem to be confusing the CLAM community with the JD community. This is the CLAM thread, and you're complaining about the behaviour of a JD mod in the JD trollbox... You have the wrong thread.


No, not anybody here. Here we get censored by Creative, not by Chuck.

Discussions about what discussions are allowed over a poker table at a casino aren't held in Federal Reserve meetings, even though the poker table plays with US dollar denominated chips.

JD isn't a democracy, and maximizing profits isn't a significant goal. Mods are there to keep the chat tolerable. You seem to keep calling Chuck "Nazi", "Fascist", etc. and he mutes you. If you have a problem with any particular interaction with him, please email the JD support address and I will look into it, and talk to Chuck if appropriate. Posting to the CLAM thread and insulting Chuck isn't the way to deal with your grievances.

Looks like somebody wants to buy some CLAMs!

Where can I find your review? Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

I think it's easy to underestimate the amount of interest drawn to CLAM when it's regularly in the top three traded coins by volume at poloniex.

The recent volatility is something day traders seem to love.


Bitcoin says something like that every 4 years only instead of stopping block rewards they halve them. Bitcoin needs block rewards because without them almost nobody would run mining hardware. Without block rewards the network would be easy to attack. Digging doesn't benefit CLAM's security at all, and in fact is a threat to security if a big enough cache of undug CLAMs is dug by a single entity.


I am honestly surprised by the number of people who are opposed to doing anything to reduce the impact of future big digs.

Right. About a week ago some newbie in the poloniex trollbox was asking why CLAMs was created to "reward only the early adopters of crypto", because you need to have be into crypt 18 months ago to qualify for free CLAM.

It amused me, because obviously at the time of release the snapshot was recent, but it is becoming increasingly "early adopters and old services only" as time goes on.

When I am Clamperor For Life (vote 7a69a853, you know you want to) you can be my second in command, webchris.

Well, the difficulty adjusts to keep the network staking an average 1 CLAM per minute, so the increase in supply from staking is pretty much steady.

It presumably went up because curious finally dumped the rest of his big stash to buyers who started staking them.

http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CLAM/charts.php?type=posdifficulty&startheight=700000&mindifficulty=70000&maxdifficulty=100000 shows the difficulty over the last 70k blocks or so. It's not a huge increase really. The 20 block moving average going up from 80k to 90k in around 50 days:

/clamour, /clamours, and /support also work (and do exactly the same thing). Creative doesn't like us calling it "voting" because CLAM isn't a security.

The 'account' tab on Just-Dice has information about the voting stuff too, and https://just-dice.com/misc/clamour_weights.txt shows how much support each of the registered petitions currently has from Just-Dice investors.

Your move, Mr. Vulture:



Is it funny yet?

Try using Just-Dice's "chat" tab. Type /dig and the BTC/LTC/DOGE address. It will tell you whether the address received any CLAMs and whether they have already been claimed.

For example, I type:

  /dig 1P2MktBR3dYoM71jJapSfLBqimAHMADY4K

and it tells me:

  15:10:20 INFO: BTC address [1P2MktBR] was not funded on 12th May 2014; [xWKzem1t] is the corresponding CLAM address; see [history:1P2MktBR] for a history of its balance

where the [...] texts are links. Or I type:

  /dig 14o7zMMUJkG6De24r3JkJ6USgChq7iWF86

and it tells me:

  15:11:50 INFO: CLAM address [xC6ktEBw] corresponding to BTC address [14o7zMMU] was funded with 4.60545574 CLAM when the initial distribution was made; the CLAMs were already dug up, sorry

or, for an address I know is still funded but don't own:

  /dig 1CrPRwBkwZdEejXusCbh8o35YMN7g7ffKf

and it says:

  15:12:49 INFO: CLAM address [xLA2Kp2E] corresponding to BTC address [1CrPRwBk] was funded with 4.60545574 CLAM when the initial distribution was made; the CLAMs have not been spent and are waiting for you to collect them; [further instructions]

It doesn't matter whether you sync or import first.

You need to be synced up to at least block 10,000 to see your free CLAMs.

And if you import the old privkeys *after* you sync the chain, you need to -rescan before you will see the coins - but I think the import command does that for you.

I'll just leave this here:

Unreal how?

There's nothing unusual about the bets other than their size. Some people like to gamble with large amounts, and bitdice lets them do it.

Bets of this size used to be a regular occurrence a year or two ago.